David, yes - thanks for reminding me - I recall both now. The cost per ml of ink comparison by InkjetArt is partially useful - the other essential element of the costing arithmetic is the quantity of ink used per square foot of coverage on the papers one uses. It could differ considerably from one machine/technology to another. I know it well for my Epson 4800 by now and published some results on this website, but it takes many months of use to develop a reliable estimate, so we won't know the ink costs per print for these new machines until users collect and analyse a large enough data set over the coming months.[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=77538\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Well said Mark.We're a day away from Photokina, so I suppose I can say that the HP LFP's are setting up in the right direction. Epson should follow suite with their LFP's soon after. The 3800 seems like a very reasonable prosumer-pro printer and if it's like the 9180 even though there is no roll, custom page sizes should allow it anyway. HP will be late to answer the equivalent 3800, but at least it'll give them some time to add features to the new products that Epson have left out.The Z printers are not in the same league of hardware so I cannot compare them. I also don't think the 4800 should be compared either as it is a true pro printer. I do think Epson will include more print heads in their LFP's which will allow for multiple carts to print from onboard print heads without this rather silly head sharing. But the carriage design is such that to allow changeable carts and multiple heads for future slot ins is a big deal , one that HP has thought about. The possibilities are endless and promising for those who could afford it, price and space. It is not something that a small footprint printer will have if it has large cap. carts. Too many compromises in life.